The stalest genre of geopolitcal analysis is the one-note retards who see EVERYTHING as “this is a distraction,” “this is another neo-con forever war,” “this is done at Netanyahu’s behest,” “this is more of the same” no matter what happens.

That’s not to say that these conclusions couldn’t be correct in any given case — they might, and surely they have at times in the past — but applying them lazily to EVERY case is retarded.

The world-weary “I told you so” mantra in the face of ANY development is a tell a person hasn’t looked into what’s going on, and just wants to sound savvy to others.

You are under no obligation to pay attention to geopolitics — maybe you’d even be better off hiking in the mountains and swimming in freezing lakes. But if you’re not paying attention except to headlines and hot takes, why make the discourse dumber?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Amen! Listen much speak little.

As my father said to me a lot growing up, ‘better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt’.

sounds like he just wanted to have a quiet family car ride...

I was a big mouthed kid, lol.

I also thought ‘Trust, but verify’ was his original until I was in my 30s, so let me know if this one has a famous progenitor.

He's also Satoshi 😁. Although I don't know who came up with "Don't trust, verify".

It's on blockstream jade boxes too

Trust but verify was Ronald Reagan, I believe in reference to Soviet disarmament

oh, that's who it was

💯 %

lol no.

It's not aimed at anyone, just a good encapsulation of my own thoughts recently. I'm a bit guilty of it myself, but I hope it's clear I don't pretend to be smart about geopolitics. I follow it pretty loosely, and generally don't geopolitical post from a soap box.

Related, I find it annoying how otherwise unintelligent and disengaged people get all riled up when it comes to politics. They spend next to no time understanding the world, yet get heated in no time on any topic in the arena, certain they've got it all figured out. It's bizarre af

Even if you're reasonably well read, in Geo-politics, one can never know everything about all it's complexities, therefore, no matter how erudute your arguments about a current political issue, there will always be someone else who holds a contrary view, while being presented with the same set of facts. That being said, all politicians are cunts and criminals so, don't vote and live your life as freely as you can, is my motto.

Word. Not sure I expressed what I'd hoped very well, but hopefully gist got across. Politics or geopolitics, basically big news stuff, has a weird way of bringing out strong opinions from everyone. Not just strong, but that next level of heatedness that is some type of brainwashing resistance. Not sure that makes sense, but surely you've experienced how a normal convo with a stranger can go from cordial to frothing in not time, the second political disagreement comes up. I step into this trap constantly, can't help myself

Nobody is satisfied with the balance of power on any level. Tension and conflict are always lurking beneath the surface of any interaction.

That you expect me to have access to more than one freezing lake is really too much Chris.

Real man has access to minimum three freezing lakes. Had a higher opinion of you before this post.

I’m glad we’ve recalibrated expectations.

In which ways are the generalizations you target different than your own generalization? Are you not trying to sound smart and worldly by criticizing others for trying to do the same, both using summarization and synthesis?

I’m not against your critical observation but just pointing out the irony of your own genetic fallacy.

I'm not making a generalization except about generalizations themselves. I’m saying each geopolitical event is unique, to take them case by case.

But, ma pont. Tas ma pont.

sorry, not seeing it

The problem with denouncing generalizations, slapstick irony aside, is that it misses Hegel’s terrific observation that all theory is a kind of generalization.

And I would claim we desperately need theory in this here Information Age when there are so many ways to mislead and misinform the masses based theories that work: poisoning the well, behavioral psychology, scaling effects, pop culture, agenda setting, NLP, captured alignment, fiat incentives …sheet.

I'm not denouncing ALL generalizations only the lazy ones I’m seeing trotted out in response to current events.

If precision is the accepted opposite of lazy, the burden of defining it rests with the accuser, ja?

Without a precise definition of bad theory, the accuser may well be accused of censorship, ja?

the meaning of what I wrote is clear — you are free to disagree with it, but endless semantic pedantry isn’t moving the needle for me.

Sure if you are sure you know what you mean then you’re golden. Why even speak though if you don’t need to define your terms to others?

maybe I should try to define every word in the English language from first principles, fail, find the language wanting and never speak again?

or else bare no responsibility for your attempts to communicate in the medium of language?--meaning is always a negotiation of the middle ground between intention and reception so my attempt to hold you accountable for the fraying of your ideas is balanced by your hesitation to waste time in the labyrinth of semantics ... and so here we are two strangers in a strange landscape